User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 30

  1. #1
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,805

    Default Being Gay at Jerry Falwell's University

    A long but important account of what it's like to be gay at a Christian university. The author is very open and honest about the types of people he encountered and even admits to a kind of homophobiaphobia. I think this might be useful to liberals who have no real experience with how christians actually act in community together yet have all sorts of preconceived notions and judgements. But, then this is just one guy's experience in one place.

    I do like that he seems to be on the same wavelength of what tolerance is as I am.

    Not tolerating someone for his narrow-mindedness is perhaps the epitome of intolerance. I learned from my time at Liberty that this bigotry happens on both sides: not only were there some Christians who wanted to stone some gays, but there were even some gays who wanted to stone a few Christians. Just the other day, I saw a man driving a car with two bumper stickers. One was a rainbow. The other showed a picture of a lion, and contained the caption "The Romans had it right." Just another open-minded gay man, I suppose.
    But, really the better parts are his accounts of his relationships with professors especially his old theology professor. You'll just have to read it.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/arc...ersity/274578/

    *I don't really want this to be a thread that just repeats past arguments over homosexuality and marriage. If we can mostly avoid that we can see where it goes.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #2
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    So, not all Christians are idiots? Quelle surprise! The moral magnanimousness, though, is simply revolting. They all 'love' him out of pity for his misfortune and, in doing so, revel in being such exemplary Christians.

    I am not surprised that young men at fundamentalist universities enjoy homoerotic games, however.

    I never told Dr. Falwell that I was gay; but I wouldn't have been afraid of his response. Would he have thought homosexuality was an abomination? Yes. Would he have thought it was God's intention for me to be straight? Yes.
    This is the issue people have with him and his ilk, because that is what they preach. Being a good fatherly figure to the students at his own university and not wanting to stone every gay person does not make it any better.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    So, not all Christians are idiots? Quelle surprise! The moral magnanimousness, though, is simply revolting. They all 'love' him out of pity for his misfortune and, in doing so, revel in being such exemplary Christians.

    I am not surprised that young men at fundamentalist universities enjoy homoerotic games, however.


    This is the issue people have with him and his ilk, because that is what they preach. Being a good fatherly figure to the students at his own university and not wanting to stone every gay person does not make it any better.
    So is it a problem if people beilieve that homosexuality is not a correct form ( or one intended by the designer of himanity) of behavior even if they respect and act lovingly towards gay people and allow them to do whatever they like and don't oppose their ability to legally marry or have any other rights? If they don't claim that it's disgusting or a mental disease or in anyway perverse, but just not the way people are designed?

    Basically does someone have to agree completely with your opinion of homosexuality to not have something "wrong" with them?

    I think this was in line with Beorns original idea that at some point it becomes a little intolerant to decide that tolerance means 100% agreement with your veiws.

  4. #4
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    I believe they also have rules against men having beards, although I may be thinking of Brigham Young. Either way, that baffles me. I'm pretty sure the majority of biblical characters had beards. At the very least, they are popularly depicted as such.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  5. #5
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    So is it a problem if people beilieve that homosexuality is not a correct form ( or one intended by the designer of himanity) of behavior even if they respect and act lovingly towards gay people and allow them to do whatever they like and don't oppose their ability to legally marry or have any other rights? If they don't claim that it's disgusting or a mental disease or in anyway perverse, but just not the way people are designed?
    Yes. The author of the article, after all his lovely talks, still felt he had to leave the university, because he could not reconcile how he felt with what he had been taught to think. Nice Mr. Falwell made a fortune selling these harmful thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Basically does someone have to agree completely with your opinion of homosexuality to not have something "wrong" with them?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    I think this was in line with Beorns original idea that at some point it becomes a little intolerant to decide that tolerance means 100% agreement with your veiws.
    There is nothing wrong with intolerance in certain respects. But you will not hear me say that tolerance means 100% agreement with my views.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Yes. The author of the article, after all his lovely talks, still felt he had to leave the university, because he could not reconcile how he felt with what he had been taught to think. Nice Mr. Falwell made a fortune selling these harmful thoughts.


    No.


    There is nothing wrong with intolerance in certain respects. But you will not hear my say that tolerance means 100% agreement with my views.

    So you say people don't have to agree with you but then have a problem with the university (which the author attended of his own free will, knowing completely their religious standpoints) which by the authors account showed him a lot of love a respect and had many Christian people who did not attempt to change his orientation?

    At some point isn't the university allowed to hold a position on the issue that doesn't agree with yours. The author doesn't seem to have felt "harmed". But he left of his own volition (was not kicked out) because he no longer agreed with the school. The school is entitled to their position (since they treat the students with dignity and respect) and the student is entitled to say "no I disagree and leave the school".

    Imagine again the Christian person I described before. If asked their opinion on homosexuality and they truly beilieve it's not god intention are they being "harmful" to voice that?

    If a non-Christian is asked their opinion on Christianity and they voice it. Are they being "harmful" to Christians?

    My point is that I think it's fine to ask everyone to respect you but not to ask them to agree with you. Of course I don't agree with the idea that the gays cause 9/11. But I also don't think Religious people have to condone homosexuality in order to not be bigots

  7. #7
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    So you say people don't have to agree with you but then have a problem with the university (which the author attended of his own free will, knowing completely their religious standpoints) which by the authors account showed him a lot of love a respect and had many Christian people who did not attempt to change his orientation?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    At some point isn't the university allowed to hold a position on the issue that doesn't agree with yours.
    Of course it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    The author doesn't seem to have felt "harmed".
    His internal struggle is all over the text. You can call it whatever you like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    But he left of his own volition (was not kicked out) because he no longer agreed with the school. The school is entitled to their position (since they treat the students with dignity and respect) and the student is entitled to say "no I disagree and leave the school".
    Aha.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    Imagine again the Christian person I described before. If asked their opinion on homosexuality and they truly beilieve it's not god intention are they being "harmful" to voice that?
    That depends on how they voice it. Jerry Falwell's way to voice it certainly was harmful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    If a non-Christian is asked their opinion on Christianity and they voice it. Are they being "harmful" to Christians?
    That, again, depends on how they voice it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    My point is that I think it's fine to ask everyone to respect you but not to ask them to agree with you. Of course I don't agree with the idea that the gays cause 9/11. But I also don't think Religious people have to condone homosexuality in order to not be bigots
    Neither do I. But I still condemn them for it.

  8. #8
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    I believe they also have rules against men having beards, although I may be thinking of Brigham Young. Either way, that baffles me. I'm pretty sure the majority of biblical characters had beards. At the very least, they are popularly depicted as such.
    Yes, that's Brigham Young, the Mormons.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham...ity_Honor_Code

    I'm not aware of Falwell and Liberty having issues with beards. Also note that there might be reasons a school might be against certain means of self-expression without necessarily labeling it as sin. Non-religious schools sometimes have restrictions simply to keep a firm line and some degree of order and uniformity.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  9. #9
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pseudo View Post
    So is it a problem if people beilieve that homosexuality is not a correct form ( or one intended by the designer of himanity) of behavior even if they respect and act lovingly towards gay people and allow them to do whatever they like and don't oppose their ability to legally marry or have any other rights? If they don't claim that it's disgusting or a mental disease or in anyway perverse, but just not the way people are designed?
    That is not what I've found with conservative Christians, so you seem to be speaking 100% hypothetically here. The whole point of conservatism seems geared to standing up for one's beliefs and preserving a way of life. This doesn't allow much room for holding a belief and not acting on it; in fact, a lot of teens when they attend religious high schools and colleges is geared towards instilling courage both to witness about their faith AND even to take social stands on them. I was very pressured in those kinds of organizations to go out and proselytize if I wasn't "ashamed of Jesus," and the insinuation was that if I didn't love others enough to save them from mortal damnation as well as openly identify myself as a follower of Jesus, then Jesus would be ashamed of me on the day of judgement. Sometimes that was actually preached to me; sometimes it was just an underlying subtext.

    Meanwhile it's the liberal end of the church that is more inclined to say, "Well, I don't it makes sense or it isn't what I believe, but I won't stand in their way." The liberals are the branches who are at that end of the spectrum. I don't find the conservatives are simply able to hold an opinion without feeling like God is telling them to take actions on their values; it's part of how they approach faith.

    I know I'm still painting with too broad a brush, as you'll get different flavors within THOSE categories, even. But in any case, where religious belief is involved, there are those who believe that believing something means taking a stand, both for God and to save the misled; this kind of conflict is inevitable.

    I think this was in line with Beorns original idea that at some point it becomes a little intolerant to decide that tolerance means 100% agreement with your veiws.
    Yes, well that "original idea" is not exactly rocket science, and it exemplifies why these are arguments just never get resolved around here. People are just dealing with the extremist arguments, which distorts the argument we should be having and making it difficult to discuss anything reasonably.

    Only caricatures of human beings are either completely 100% against something and willing to punish and destroy others for opposing them, or (on the other end) are crazy enough to be intolerant in their demands for tolerance. To be more succinct, I don't think the main issues in this country, and the issue that needs to be resolved, is gays who want to stone Christians and Christians who want to stone gays. They are obviously fringe elements. The issue that needs to be resolved are the attitudes more in the ambiguous middle. If I am someone who believes that someone who performs a homosexual act is choosing sin, then how do i respond to them in a way that is authentic to the path of love? TRULY authentic? And if I am someone who performs a homosexual act and thinks it is not immoral, how do I respond to someone who disagrees with me?

    People just really have no idea how to respond in a way that doesn't violate other aspects of their beliefs. We are still working on figuring that out.

    The whole concept of "tolerance" is more of a broad resolution plan ("You can agree to disagree but otherwise not get in someone's way") that definitely works for things that people can agree are just "personal preferences" but breaks down when people feel that moral codes are being violated. Yet the USA does not cater to particular religious doctrines, so unless there is a practical reason something shouldn't be done, individuals are on their own to decide what their behavior towards others will consist of.

    Note that there are some things that people do agree on. For example, pretty much uniformly in the US, there are few who support Westboro's response to gay people... especially after they extended their response to soldiers who died in action. But Westboro is at one extreme and to me isn't the issue in terms of the bulk of the culture, they're just a fringe annoyance.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #10
    my floof is luxury Wind Up Rex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    853 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,983

    Default

    Liberty is a...different kinda place. One of my girlfriends got a full-ride there for law school cause her mom is a professor. They made her sign a contract saying that she would not drink, use drugs, nor have premarital intercourse of any sort while in attendance on pain of expulsion. That on top of the hyper-conservatism of her peers pretty much had her packing after one semester. Definitely not an environment for everyone.
    And so long as you haven’t experienced this: to die and so to grow,
    you are only a troubled guest on the dark earth

Similar Threads

  1. [ISTJ] ISTJs and being good at distinguishing right and wrong and enforcing it
    By swordpath in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-04-2008, 08:41 PM
  2. The Conundrum of Jerry Falwell
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-15-2007, 11:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO